#onlineconflict

[jingdiyew]

“Who Controls Social Media? Digital Citizenship and the Challenges of Social Media Governance”

Week 11: Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance

Social media has become one of the most powerful communication spaces in modern society. Platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and X influence how people receive news, express opinions, and participate in public discussions. However, with this influence comes conflict, especially regarding misinformation, hate speech, political manipulation, and online harassment. This is where the concept of social media governance becomes important (L. Li, 2025).

Social media governance refers to the rules, policies, and systems used to regulate online platforms and user behavior. Governments, technology companies, and users themselves all play roles in shaping how digital spaces are managed. One of the biggest challenges is balancing freedom of expression with the need to reduce harmful content online.

A major example of this issue can be seen in the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. False claims about vaccines, treatments, and conspiracy theories spread rapidly across social media platforms, influencing public attitudes and behaviour. Platforms like Facebook and TikTok responded by removing misleading posts, adding fact-checking labels, and promoting official health information. According to research, social media governance became increasingly important during this period because online misinformation had direct real-world consequences for public health and safety (Suzor, 2019).

In Malaysia, discussions about social media governance have also become more visible, especially regarding online hate speech, fake news, and political communication. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has frequently warned users against spreading false information online, particularly during elections and national crises. This demonstrates how governments are increasingly involved in regulating digital communication spaces.

Another example is the debate surrounding content moderation on platforms like X (formerly Twitter). Under the ownership of Elon Musk, discussions about free speech and moderation became more controversial. Some users argued that reducing moderation protects freedom of expression, while others believed it increased harmful content and misinformation online. This reflects the complexity of governing digital platforms where millions of people with different perspectives interact daily.

An important concept connected to social media governance is platform power. Large technology companies do not simply host content — they actively shape what users see through algorithms, moderation systems, and platform policies. According to Gillespie (2019), platforms function as powerful gatekeepers that influence public discourse and visibility online. This means that private companies now have significant control over digital communication and online communities.

At the same time, users also share responsibility as digital citizens. Responsible digital citizenship involves critically evaluating information before sharing it, respecting others online, and understanding platform rules. Many online conflicts become worse because users spread misinformation or engage aggressively without verifying facts. Therefore, digital literacy is essential in helping users navigate online spaces more responsibly (Isnaini et al., 2025).

In my opinion, social media governance is necessary because online platforms have major influence over society, politics, and public opinion. However, governance should be balanced carefully to avoid excessive censorship while still protecting users from harmful content. As digital citizens, people should not rely entirely on platforms or governments to manage online spaces. Users themselves must also practice ethical communication, critical thinking, and respectful engagement online (Mekheimer & Abdelhalim, 2025).

References

Li, L. (2025). The role and impact of social media in public governance. Lecture Notes in Education Arts Management and Social Science, 3(11), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.18063/lne.v3i11.1437

Suzor, N. P. (2019). Lawless. In Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108666428

Gillespie, T. (2019). Custodians of the internet. In Yale University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029

Isnaini, I., Nasyiriyah, T. N., Istighfari, N. A., & Rohmah, S. R. (2025). The role of digital literacy in social media. MIMESIS, 6(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.12928/mms.v6i1.12242

Mekheimer, M., & Abdelhalim, W. M. (2025). The digital age students: Exploring leadership, freedom, and ethical online behavior: A quantitative study. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 11, 101325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101325

[daphanie18]

Week 11: Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance

Hi everyone 👋 welcome back to my blog!

In this week’s reflection, I will be discussing digital citizenship and conflict, with a focus on social media governance. As social media platforms continue to grow, they have become important spaces for communication, discussion, and debate. However, these platforms also face increasing challenges related to misinformation, online conflict, and harmful content.

Digital citizenship refers to the responsible and ethical use of digital technologies. In online environments, this includes how users communicate with others, respond to conflict, and engage with information. A key aspect of digital citizenship is understanding that online behaviour has real-world consequences, especially when content spreads quickly across platforms (Choi, 2020).

Social media governance refers to the rules, policies, and systems that platforms use to manage user behaviour and content. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube use a combination of community guidelines, algorithmic systems, and human moderation to regulate content and reduce harm. However, these systems are not always consistent or transparent, which can lead to ongoing debates about fairness and accountability (Gillespie, 2020).

Online conflict can take many forms, including disagreements in comment sections, political debates, and harassment between users. Research shows that platform design and algorithmic recommendation systems can intensify conflict by promoting highly engaging or emotionally charged content (Jhaver et al., 2021).

From a digital citizenship perspective, users also play an important role in managing online conflict. Responsible participation includes respectful communication, fact-checking information before sharing, and avoiding harmful interactions. Users should also be aware that algorithms influence what content they see and interact with online.

However, social media governance raises ongoing debates about freedom of expression versus content moderation. While stricter moderation can reduce harmful content, it may also raise concerns about censorship and bias. This creates a complex challenge for platforms, governments, and users alike.

Overall, digital citizenship and social media governance are closely connected. Understanding how platforms manage conflict helps users become more responsible digital citizens and encourages healthier online environments.

Reference

Choi, M. (2020). Digital citizenship for democratic citizenship: A challenge for transformative learning. Adult Learning, 31(4), 141–148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306930360_A_Concept_Analysis_of_Digital_Citizenship_for_Democratic_Citizenship_Education_in_the_Internet_Age

Gillespie, T. (2020). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327186182_Custodians_of_the_internet_Platforms_content_moderation_and_the_hidden_decisions_that_shape_social_media

Jhaver, S., Boylston, C., Yang, D., & Bruckman, A. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of de-platforming as a moderation strategy on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–26. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3479525

[caitlin-ohara]

Week 7: Social Media Governance and its Relationship to Online Conflict

Social media governance is the practice of implementing policy and regulation to reduce conflict online (Flew 2015). In relation to digital citizenship, social media governance is important in the understanding of the regulations put into place by networks in order to control social media platforms on the internet. Social media governance can therefore contribute to the idea of minimising online harassment and conflict which may be evident in many digital communities and groups online.

An issue with social media and governance is the employment of technologies used to filter conflict whilst protecting the safety of online users. From this, companies can address this issue by creating a series of policies that directly govern the information uploaded on live platforms (DeNardis 2015).

Community-based social media platforms establish regulations with the intention of protecting online community spaces whilst controlling the administration and moderators of particular groups online. Facebook groups can refer to this idea, through the way in which group administrators are monitored, which is ultimately influenced by societal factors. Facebook doesn’t govern through the law, however, through social interactions online, including ‘social, political, cultural and economic consequences’ (Schwarz 2019). Furthermore, this suggests that Facebook, and similarly other social media networks govern and regular groups and content through external factors that may influence consumers within society. Due to this, the public interest becomes the main focus when creating and administrating these groups in order to protect the members within the community, whilst also protecting the platforms themselves through legislation.

Social media governance can also contribute to the online harassment that occurs within the digital citizen public sphere. The regulation of policies and laws on social media platforms is designed to limit the amount of conflict through governing users’ online behaviour, however, the lack of governing online can ultimately lead to an increase in online harassment (Pater 2016). Policies can be powerful in limiting the amount of conflict that occurs online through regular monitoring and having laws in place that minimises online harassment.

Overall, the relationship between social media governance and online conflict and harassment can attribute to the success of media platforms or the ultimate downfall of these networks. This is due to the idea that through governing there is a sense of control within the online community space, however, if this isn’t regulated properly this can result in online conflict and even harassment.

References:

DeNardis, L. & Hackl, A. 2015. ‘Internet governance by social media platforms’ Telecommunications Policy. [online] Available at < https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596115000592 >

 Flew, T. 2015. Social Media Governance’ Social Media and Society. [online] Available at < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305115578136 >

Napoli, P. 2015. ‘Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers’ Telecommunications Policy. [online] Available at <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030859611400192X?casa_token=Kz62a8gK1oAAAAAA:-DkvKyUGlfJXbzdlCFuQUCvvFYDvCTKhOKgKHIVTcFZoYXpsZUlx2sZ-SkdiaIK0IeuvC9h7_YUm >

 Pater, J., Kim, M., Mynatt, E. & Fiesler, C. 2016. ‘Characterizations of Online Harassment: Comparing Policies Across Social Media Platforms’ [online] Available at < https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2957276.2957297 >

 Schwarz, O. 2019. ‘Facebook Rules: Structures of Governance in Digital Capitalism and the Control of Generalized Social Capital’ Theory, Culture, and Society. [online] Available at < https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0263276419826249 >